Minor Barun Nayak Vs Manoranjan Pradhan

¶1

Digitally signed YOGESH by YOGESHTIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.07.14 11:35:10 +0530

1

2025:CGHC:31431

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 697 of 2018

¶7

Minor Barun Nayak S/o Hiradhar Nayak Aged About 16 Years R/o Sukhapali, P.S. Sariya, Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh, Present Address Behind Beladula Stadium Raigarh, Through The Legal Guardian Father Hiradhar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Claimant)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Manoranjan Pradhan S/o Abhay Pradhan Aged About 26 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Badhantaila, P.S. Charbhatha, District Bargarh, Orrisa

¶11

2 - Rameshchandra Agrawal S/o Late Munshiram Agrawal Occupation Vehicle Owner No. O.D. 17-3657, R/o Behind Station Bargarh Orrisa 3 - Through Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Bargarh, Through Branch Office Sarla Vila Complex, Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Appellant	: Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate on behalf of Mr. ManojKumar Jaiswal, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 and 2	: None
For Respondent No.3	: Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate (through V.C.).

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

08.07.2025

¶18

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 10.01.2018 passed by

¶19

2

¶20

First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.95/2016, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.3,36,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim application till its realization.

¶21

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that on 12.01.2015, at about 8.45 AM, the appellant was going to Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Devgaon, at that relevant time, one Pick-up bearing registration No.OD-17-3657 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, dashed the appellant, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries over his person and he was taken to Dr. S.K. Agrawal at Baramkela, District Hospital, Raigarh and thereafter, Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur. The appellant has suffered injuries over his palm of right hand as well as other parts of the body.

¶22

3. After recovering from injuries, claimant filed a claim application before the Claims Tribunal claiming Rs.8,90,000/- as compensation against injuries suffered by him in motor accident.

¶23

4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex-parte before the learned Claims Tribunal.

¶24

5. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company submitted its reply to claim application and denied the claim while pleading that the appellant has not produced any document with regard to his

¶25

3

¶26

medical treatment or permanent disability. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle has not possessed valid and effective driving licence and permit, therefore, there was violation of conditions of insurance policy and as such, Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount of compensation.

¶27

6. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,36,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.

¶28

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in awarding the meagre amount of compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that the claimant had suffered severe injuries in the accident, for which, he has hospitalized for 15-16 days, as such, he prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably.

¶29

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.3 supported the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal and submits that after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of the compensation to the claimant, which does not warrant any interference.

¶30

9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the record carefully.

¶31

4

¶32

10. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by the claimant, which was not rebutted by the non-applicants therein and further considering the medical bills, though it appropriate to award Rs.1,06,500/- towards treatment and medicines. The Claims Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/towards permanent disability, Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. This apart, the Claims Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards special diet. Thus, the Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,36,500/- to the appellant/claimant.

¶33

11. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

¶34

12. Now, this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,36,500/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶35

13. Admittedly, in an vehicular accident that had taken place on 12.01.2015, the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injures on his person. Looking to the grievous injuries, he was taken to District Hospital, Raigarh and later, Ramkrishna Care Hospital

¶36

5

¶37

where he was admitted from 13.01.2015 to 28.01.2015. It is also pertinent to mention here that the evidence in this regard adduced by the claimant has not been rebutted. The Claims Tribunal, considering the evidence, oral and documentary as also material available on record and also looking to the nature and number of injuries, particularly the permanent disability certificate (Ex.P/24) mentioning permanent disability to the extent of 30%, which was cured after 4-5 years, awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is on lower side. During the course of treatment, it cannot also be discarded that the claimant must have suffered pain and agony arising out of grievous injuries sustained by him and must have remained out of his studies.

¶38

14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and number of injuries sustained by the claimant/inured, the period of his hospitalization, during which period, he had to undergo continuous treatment, further considering the fact that during treatment of claimant, he suffered severe mental agony and pain arising out of grievous injuries, the expenses incurred by him during the course of treatment and the unrebutted evidence adduced in support thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant/appellant is entitled for an additional lump-sum amount of Rs.50,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in the accident, which would meet the ends of justice.

¶39

6

¶40

15. In addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, i.e., Rs.3,36,500/-, the appellant/claimant is held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization, as held by the Claims Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain unchanged.

¶41

16. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.

¶42

17. With the above observation and modification, the appeal stands allowed in part. No order as to costs.

¶43

18. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶46

Yogesh

Minor Barun Nayak v. Manoranjan Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minor Barun Nayak v. Manoranjan Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gulabi Baug Vs Ravi Thomas

Jubeda Begam Vs Dharamjaigarh Public H.s. School

Dhanmet Vs Atwari

Smt. Sarita Panigrahi Vs Smt. Rukani

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Gujeshwari

Durgesh Kumar @ Rinku Soni Vs Ganesh Ram Kshatriya